Theoretically, if there was a nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S

is there a danger that, through the targeting of "urban" areas, the number of casualties among the native white populations would be minimized, and would largely be confined to blacks/illegals/Muslims/undesirables? Here's hoping there's no risk of this being even a possibility.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w
demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/),
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Most people will die from consequences, nuclear power stations, chemical plants will fly to the air, hunger, lack of medical care, crime.

so a farmer a hundred miles from a burned out urban core has little chance of survival?

Russia would be destroyed utterly and the US would survive. So there'd be a global net loss of whites

good chances for those who have weapons and who live in a blind hole.

Really, spread over almost three times the landmass and facing an enemy with a smaller nuclear arsenal then them but THEY will be the ones destroyed utterly?

wants to compete in survival with russians

Military installations would be targeted first then major manufactory centers. Most deaths though: Plenty of whites and non-whites would die.

Kek, nobody would be so foolish

The US has enough nuclear submarines and offshore silos that they could destroy any country even if the whole US mainland was lost. They also have a much larger economy than Russia, more than half of the world's aircraft carriers, a possible land route into Russia through allied countries, and the support of most of the world. Russia has nukes, a lot of them, but so does the US and the US outclasses them in literally every other category.

Israels been trying to nuke us for months now.

FUCK YOU OP YOU JEWISH SCUM

>being this deluded

>Muh giant puppy

Based Komondor, best war dog, capable of stopping low caliber bullets and fucking up wolves coming through.

>this is my argument.jpg

And mopping up the blood after.

Damn right.

>THEY will be the ones destroyed utterly?
80% of russia is a canada style wasteland. they had to make the largest helicopter in the world because simply driving entire infantry platoons around isn't an option and it's too burdensome to build landing strips in the forests.

the russian soviet nuking plans hail from soviet era and are well thought out and malevolent, think about nuking food and water along with very large EMP's

Oh, in the event of a nuclear exchange the US is fucked. Totally fucked. Because to survive and begin rebuilding you'd need charts upon charts detailing every facility in the US that would become or lead to the creation of no-mans-lands in the event of the failure of maintenance.

Otherwise, you'd go to build somewhere only to find out too late the groundwater has a 100% chance to give you a horrifying array of cancers.

That said, I'd capture a shuttle crawler to use as a mobile throne/base platform and have a mixed army of tankers and motorcycle cavalry raiders.

smokers on the horizon

Dude's got his Mad Max fantasy all worked out.

...

Fair enough

The reality of the situation is that Russia is so huge that it would be impossible to destroy the entire Russian state. But to be quite honest I figure if there would be a nuclear exchange, important rural crop producing areas would be some of the first strike areas along with Urban zones. I could only image Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, D.C. along with the Southern states and many west coast cities being hit immediately.

I say Southern states because I figure it to be common sense to kill all the people who are willing to fight for the country first. It only appears to be most strategic, in hopes that after the strike you'll survive with enough might to not be opposed. Russian leaders if smart would examine the most allow areas to the US government and ideology, striking them. Trying to negotiate with whatever is left.

He's right.
For example, in Hiroshima only 80 thousand people died in first 5 minutes after bomb exploded, final casualties count was around 200 thousands.
These days, EMP alone will lead to at least hundreds of thousands dead in first minutes of exchange.
Radiation sickness and hunger will kill dozens if not hundreds of millions.
Like, even such trivial factor as lack of not contaminated water will kill millions.

there was a thread here a long time ago, it was some guy who was an expert on nuclear warfare, and he basically said that total nuclear war would be horrible, but much less than we think

It went something like - at any point there is only like 3/4 or less nukes that are ready to launch.

Then, not all of them will actually launch, there's a certain number that will malfunction.

Of the ones that do launch, a number of them will be taken out by defense systems, and of the ones that go through, multiple warheads are intended to hit a designated target, for backup.

So if you don't live in a target city or near strategic installations or whatever. you will probably survive the initial attack.

But everybody is fucked after that.

You faggots don't know a thing about how nukes work.

You play too many paradox games, Russia isn't nearly as big as it looks after you remove the land that actually supports their life.

I have it half worked out. A big part of it is going and having scouts report back on intact libraries and manufacturing facilities so I can send convoys to collect all the books and machines to move them to a fortified and safe position. Knowledge is power, books are the real treasures of the world, nyaa, etc.

nuclear weapons are not real. stop spreading state propaganda intended to keep you fearful and apathetic

man please thats just Waterworld.

this guy gets it

>defense systems

Are a meme. They go up into space and re-enter at something like Mach 20.

Theres not enough nukes to hit everywhere

The only sure defense is to colonize the Moon and Mars. And to build a gigantic mining facility and mortar cannon aimed at Earth.

not even urban, just industry , mining water food, and most of it through fallout ,the cities will become empty concrete islands

THAT KIND OF NUCLEAR WINTER WOULD END MOST OF THE LIFE ON EARTH WORSE THAN YELLOWSTONE SUPERERUPTION

>importing all the kike propaganda to you new founded civilization
good goy

Russia and US is allied against global satanic pedo elites; youre trying to fear monger .

Brother, hiroshima is not fucking TOPOL M or SARMAT

>paradox games
I'm just stating what would naturally take place, I figure t would be common sense to do what I just typed but at the same time who knows what Putin thinks.

As for Russia I figure it would be a replay of World War Two, with their scorched Earth policy only with Nuclear bombs. They would just keep backing up until a secure area is found, hence it being huge. As for independent reliability, I figure that to not be as important when you factor into place Russian popularly vs American.

The key idea is having land that you can stand on afterward and Russia just has more, more then anybody else really. And precisely what this user said would dictate the area damaged after the strike.

>Trump stops a terror attack in Russia via cooperation

REEE, COLLUSION, COLLUSION, IMPEACH, IMPEACH!

OP here, great replies but i think my original point was lost quickly by all of the nuclear warfare strategists and potential post-apocalyptic wasteland warlords in this thread, maybe it's for the best.

>As for Russia I figure it would be a replay of World War Two

>The strongest armies on the planet haven't improved their logics enough to deal with Russian winter 70 years later

>Meme flag

It all pans out.

yeah, whatever. russia now looks already like it was hit by nuclear war. it's a shit hole that can't get worse

In the event of a nuclear exchange it would pretty much be centralized on military targets, power facilities, centers of command, known communications facilities, suspected communications facilities, supply depots, financial centers, gold repositories, and structures related to hierarchy.

If we're talking individual targeting, there wouldn't be much left as everything the US and Russia has would be hit. Russia would be dead. The US would be crippled and shattered and would likely end up conquered by Mexico if it didn't regroup any remaining capabilities and quickly uparmor what could be salvaged.

As for what your saying here, I've seen videos on YouTube that suggest a invasion of Russia would be fruitless because it would take tens of millions of troops to securely occupy the entire nation. As for the winters, I don't know. Mistakes tend to repeat themselves.

Really, the situation and the survivors all depends if there are so many nukes in play that it turns into saturation bombing. Because if it goes off of just targets and starts going for maximum kill count, that means nobody's surviving.

My feelings regarding the prospect of a nuclear war between Russia and the US is that we should just fuck already and get it over with. The fantasies relating to rivalry became homoerotic decades ago.

the one planned is through alaska, don't forget commies planned to win a nuclear war , not do MAD , strike followed by an invasion after a few years

Mistakes repeat themselves, heating and temperature controls evolve.

Russia isn't the giant bear people think it is, most of its land is ice and snow.

I don't know about that but the Alaska route seems like common sense

But there are many Russians who occupy those areas in Siberia that would have to make a discussion. I figure the Russia state to be more united because of some intrenched culture. How else can you keep hold of such a large territory. But I have heard stories that there is a Siberia independence movement but it's about as popular as the Alaska independence movement. So take that as you will.

Russia is in a situation where it has to look big to keep the globalist kikes from devouring it, I doubt we'll ever get a clear reading on how third world the country really is unless WW3 actually happens.

Remember that the the soviet union was also a Jewish creation.

inasmuch as i hate communism because of its M/L bs the war strategies were laways with great cunning and sun-tzu-ish

The kikes and The Russians have been working together off and on since Lenin.

Life expectancy goes down by ten years, but still totally survivable.

The only chemicals youd have to worry about of things that fuck with fertility and embryonic development.

it's not that simple , imagine burning the soil so it falls on forests and crops and lakes as fallout, hitting mines and oilfields just ta have everyone starve without able doing nothing

I don't know a lot about nuclear arms but this guy is Russian so I'm assuming he knows what he's talking about

>but this guy is Russian so I'm assuming he knows what he's talking about

Only if he's over 50.

Russia is spread out more, you’re not nuking every 50 pop. village. The average Igor also doesn’t care about nuclear winter, it’s barely worse than normal Russia.

A lot better than people in the cities

USA will be destroyed, because city people all vote for Hillary while rural and suburban retards vote against their own economic interests.
We can't let them have nuclear buttons.

Groups of families who can defend themselves, grow their own food, build their own houses, and live off the land will fare much better.

its better we make the ethnostate and escape neocon jews pushing for war with russia then fleing to israhel at N -5 before the nuking

>theyre literally gonna do this

I thought an EMP would fuck us over more than a Nuke

Check out Binkov's battlegrounds on YouTube, he covers this along with other scenarios

ITT: A Bunch of mouth breathing NEAT faggots who think apocalypse movies and videos games are real

I don't care anymore. Let the world burn.

well to be fair my nigger a nuke is also an EMP so one large nuke detoned at about 300km in the centre of america would fry everything.

when i say large i mean 50+MT

yes everything that uses electricity will be toast and it will take ages to replace the grids and all that has to do with it and could take maybe 10-15 years (maybe).
keep in mind all the atomic power plants need electricity to cool the toxic shit down before it goes fukushima.
so in the end you could trigger the power plants to blow up and spread radioactive fallout like nukes and that with a single well placed emp nuke.

that's why russians keep around 10 of those 20+ megaton ones , not for strikes but regional emps of massive scope

So, what's our best defense against a nuclear strike? It's not like we can just shoot it down out of the sky, or can we?

About 2/3 of the US population would be killed, including most of the spics and niggers and libshits in the big cities. I live around 10 miles away from anything worth bombing, so I might have to contend with some fallout but I'm prepared for that. I already handle a lot of dangerous chemicals with the work I do on small electronics, so I have a chemical shower set up in my basement. I could just strip my clothes off and get in there as soon as I get home and I'd probably be fine. I have enough guns and canned food and MREs to last me about two years if it's just me, and enough bottled water for about 6-8 months, and I can also put my piss through some of the ceramic filters I have and then boil it, so there's another good 2-3 months worth of water overall if I space it out. I've also got a backup generator and enough fuel to keep the lights on for a few hours a day for close to a year, and as long as I have power from the main grid I also have cameras set up all over my house that feed into my workstation in the basement.

My only real concern is boredom, since Sup Forums wouldn't exist.

you certainly can!
but you would spread the "fuel" that fuels the atomic detonation. if a nuke goes of most of the "fuel" will be used up and mostly the byproducts of the explosion remain.
but because of that you can shoot them down you just trow enough nukes that some make it thru the shield.

It depends on the scenario, what drove this to happen?

But in the typical 'Russia attacks the US all out' scenario targeting follows a simple rule:

>If launches a nuclear weapon or commands a nuclear weapon to launch it is a target.

There are not enough deliverable nuclear devices to go about targeting other things. If you want to hit New York, you basically have to accept the certainty that several other American missiles will launch and impact Russia. That would be a hard sell for a Russian strategist.

The idea is that if you disarm a nations nuclear capability, while retaining some form of deliverable warheads yourself, you can force the other side to surrender.

This holds for a First Strike strategy. Understand that the receiving party of this First Strike has always threatened 'and if you try to disarm me I will destroy your cities'. As a counter balance to force doubt on an attacker that he has to hit every single weapon or face horrible consequences.

A decent video talking about how a First Strike on the US might play out:

youtube.com/watch?v=jlPEBROvR9w

Pic is a (smaller, what happened to file size) representation of what an actual First Strike targeting on the US might look like. Understand that if you target something you are likely to attack it with more than one warhead. So figure 2-3 three hundred KT warheads per target. Ground burst for hardened targets, airburst for non-hardened targets.

Sound like somebody I know.

Thanks, Opp.

>is there a danger that, through the targeting of "urban" areas, the number of casualties among the native white populations would be minimized, and would largely be confined to blacks/illegals/Muslims/undesirables?

A quick check of the Racist Dot Map (demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/), will reveal that although many citites are enriched for what I like to call 'Green Dots', there are plenty of blue bots mixed in as well.

White casualties in such an exchange would likely be higher than black casualties (at least initially), but the proportion of surviving blacks would likely be lower. The effect would be most pronounces outside of the southeast US. In the SE US (e.g. the Carolinas) Green dots make up a significant fraction of many small towns that wouldn't warrant a nuke. In contrast, in other parts of the country they are almost exclusively isolated to major cities (e.g. Michigan), which may be targets.

I could run a spreadsheet if I cared. It would entail comparing the population composition of the major cities vs the state populations and then assuming a fractional depletion of the urban population to determine whether it would materially alter the state's actual population composition. I'd bet it would in all places but the SE US.

>nuclear war breaks out
>russia nukes US mainland
>decides not to nuke the US carrier groups too

The EMP effect created by a ground burst detonation is hardly larger than the blast radius of the device. It is a non-issue in terms of national survival in the face of a First Strike. It would be a minor issue for recovery efforts in the face of a 10kt terrorist attack. But that is because the over all impact would be so 'low' that things like lights being out in neighborhoods surrounding the blast would be a concern.

There are no 50mt weapons.

The largest weapon the US has is a 1mt something warhead. The Russians maintain one that is only slightly larger. The Chinese have a few low single digit warheads.

The reason for this is targeting. As targeting improved the need for large warheads was removed. A large warhead was needed if you expected to miss your target by a good bit.

You can do far more damage with 3-4 smaller warheads on an ICBM than with one large warhead on the same ICBM.

I'm just a student my friend.

>muh contaminated groundwater
Dude, if that's the concern, then we'd end up no worse than Bagaladeshitcanistan, which has serious Arsenic groundwater problems... So we'd basically just fast forward to the eventual muzzie hellhole we're already on course to become.

>listing imaginary facts without backing them up is an argument

Basically the only thing that can save civilization by now is nuclear war

>First Strike
We exactly will not make it first, we just do not have crazies capable of doing this, but you have, for example McCain and other neocons.
We certainly will not make it the first, we simply do not have the crazies capable of doing this, but you have, for example, McCain and the other neocons in power.
As for our strategy, I think we will not concentrate on military facilities, there is no point in this because it will not save us from a blow. It would be logical to inflict the maximum retaliation blow and take as many enemy lives as possible, so large cities, nuclear power plants, dams is main targets.

sorry for copy-paste format

Actually, the entire strategy of Russia has always revolved around the assumption of making a First Strike and Russia (at the high government level) has never really believed that the US would strike first.

Everything from your warning systems to your missile systems to your defense systems all assume that you will strike first and not be on the receiving end of a First Strike. Today, Russia is making no moves that would signal a change in this assumed strategy.

I understand that the common person has a different perspective and do not doubt your sincerity. But your government has never held that position.

people would die like flies. Civilization is so complex and fragile that it could collapse for a relatively minor chain of events. From 7 billion to 500 million in two decades of famine, war and diseases.

3 days without any food and your peaceful neighbor becomes pic related

However, if the US did attack Russia in a First Strike targeting might look something like pic related.

>Russia has nukes, a lot of them,
Actually both sides have about the same amount, around 1600 with the US having a clear advantage in deliverable warheads.

Pretty much all of the US warheads could reach Russia in an attack while only about 1200 or less of the Russian warheads could reach the US.

It is likely that the US submarine fleet is the key element in assured retaliation that has kept Russia from attacking the US in the past. It is possible because of this that Russia may put a premium on targeting C&C targets in the US in order to disarm the US at the command level long enough to force a surrender.

Although that is highly unlikely to work.

How can he be wrong if you never made a proper rebuttal with facts einstein?

Whoever launches first launches last. The response and repeated confirmations demanded by the bureaucracy would all but remove the threat of a coordinated retaliatory strike before the initial missiles reached their destinations.

>Everything from your warning systems to your missile systems to your defense systems all assume that you will strike first and not be on the receiving end of a First Strike.
wut? it's you all the time trying to come up with an umbrella that will close you from the blow of retribution and only impracticability of this task keeps you from pressing the button.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot

I had a friend who's brother was stationed at minot afb. He said it fucking sucks.

The US missile defense system does has an aspect of enabling a first strike. However, countering such a system is very easy for a nation such as Russia and it really doesn't present an obstacle for your country. There is certainly no reason to not accept the face explanation that is given for the existence of the system, which is purely defensive.

To better understand your nations actual (and again, this is not 'you' it is your governments) actual strategy and intent simply look at the varying differences between the US and Russian nuclear systems and defenses and then ask your self for each example of difference 'is this advantaged if you make a First Strike or null if you make a First Strike'.

You will find that for each example of difference the Russia choice is 'advantaged if you make a First Strike' and the US choice is 'Null if you make a First Strike'.

An (one) example. Russia has invested heavily in mobile launchers, the US has not. The reason is that if a nation is attacked the mobile launchers will not have time to deploy before being struck. However, a nation with mobile launchers is advantaged if THEY make the First Strike because they can move these launchers to a (more or less) random location and thus save them from threat of a secondary strike thus protecting their part of the arsenal that they do not use in the First Strike.

We could go on. Literally every element and focus of US strategy is based on the assumption that Russia will attack the US first. While every element of Russian strategy is based on the assumption that Russia will attack first.

This is not to say that you personally feel that way or have that intent. But you should understand that your government, one that heavily employs propaganda on its own people, does feel that way and always has.

OP has never seen War Games.
Which means he's a faggot

Not necessarily, though it is certainly close. For the US it is close anyhow. Russia has not invested in an assured retaliation strategy as she is not concerned with the US striking first. In effect, she has no early warning system at this time (cut the timeline for the pic in half) and it is highly likely that even when she did it did not provide information of value and was simply for show. Early detection is only of value if you believe you will be attacked and of low value if you assume you will be the one attacking.

Keep in mind that while pic related shows a rather dim outcome, this is really for ground based silo systems and (depending on readiness levels) the bombers. Deployed subs are the key element of assured retaliation for the US and taking them out would depend on neutralizing the C&C systems of the US. Which, as the US has always assumed that it would receive an attack from Russia, it has heavily invested in making it very hard to impossible to neutralize.

>Literally every element and focus of US strategy is based on the assumption that Russia will attack the US first.
lie, your strategy is to get a serious advantage and hit at that moment. We are the last obstacle to the system of global domination of the Satan empire that you have become. The missile defense system is your last illusive hope and this window will soon be closed so you are trying to drag us into the war, you need an excuse.

Nope. Not even close to accurate. The disposition of every US nuclear opponent has been terminal second strike (MAD) and always reactive to US developments in tech and numerical mass; tit for tat. The US strategy since Reagan has been some manner of ABM second-strike obviation, which can only be understood as a first and final strike weapon: it obviates any existing deterrent to a US first strike and just creates a spiralling arms race, to either match US ABM capability or overwhelm it with launch mass.

All the US has to do is adopt a second strike strategy—the same one that China and Russia have—to get this back under control again.

>if there was a nuclear exchange between Russia and the U.S
I pray for this everyday. Can't tolerate 6 more years of (((stability))) after election in March